DOCSLIB.ORG

Exposing California's Dirty Secret

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exposing California's Dirty Secret Exposing California’s Dirty Secret The Truth about Drift Gillnets off our Coast Photo Credit: NOAA APRIL 2014 OCEANA | APRIL 2014 IN BRIEF Mile-long drift gillnets create deadly traps for ocean wildlife. These nets, meant for swordfish and thresher sharks, form dangerous underwater walls that entangle iconic ocean marine life. The entrapped animals cannot surface for air, so many eventually drown or become critically injured. After soaking in the ocean overnight, the nets are pulled from the water containing disturbing and unacceptably high numbers of dead and dying animals—including whales, dolphins, sea lions, sea turtles, A California sea lion drowned in a drift gillnet--along with a blue shark, visible in the background. numerous shark species and ©Tom Campbell/Marine Photobank many other ecologically and economically important fish. With cleaner gear types available and historic lows in fishery participation, it is time to revitalize the swordfish fishery by eliminating drift gillnets and replacing them with cleaner Over the past six years (May gear. 2007 to January 2013) the fishery discarded: THE ISSUE Drift gillnets operating off California take • 61% of all animals caught, including protected marine species as bycatch in high more than 41,000 common molas numbers. Despite decreasing fishing effort and (ocean sunfish) and hundreds of billfish measures taken to reduce the capture of marine • More than 6,500 sharks, amounting to mammals, on average the fishery continues to 44% of all sharks caught by the fishery kill approximately 100 dolphins, whales, seals, • 309 dolphins and sea lions per year (2007-2013). In addition, • 268 seal lions and seals there are intermittent observed endangered • 22 whales leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle takes. • 13 leatherback sea turtles Protected species incidentally injured and killed by this indiscriminate gear include the bottlenose Data from the NOAA Observer Program dolphin, long-beaked common dolphin, short- beaked common dolphin, northern right whale of the total catch (individuals, not weight) is dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, California discarded.2 On average federal fisheries observers sea lion, Northern elephant seal, Risso’s dolphin, are on board this fleet only 15.6% of the time—a short-finned pilot whale, gray whale, humpback range of 12% to 19.5% (2007-2012)3. This level is whale, sperm whale, and minke whale.1 Other insufficient to manage the fishery effectively, and major notable species taken as bycatch include insufficient for accurately accounting for the take the common mola (ocean sunfish), blue shark, of rare species. In August 2013, the drift gillnet Pacific bonito, skipjack tuna, common thresher fishery was changed to Category I status under shark, opah, striped marlin, albacore tuna, bluefin the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a designation tuna, and salmon shark. In fact, on average 61% reserved for fisheries with frequent incidences of 2 death and injury to marine mammals. In fact, only 6 out of more than 230 U.S. fisheries fall under the egregious Category I status. Due to concerns about bycatch, Washington State prohibits this fishing gear. In 2009, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission rescinded all state drift gillnet permits, prohibiting Oregon fishermen from participating in the fishery. 599 Marine Mammals BYCATCH PER SWORDFISH: This fishery catches and throws back more marine life than it keeps. From 2007 to January 2013, one marine mammal was caught for every 17 swordfish landed, four molas were caught for every swordfish, and two sharks were discarded for every three swordfish landed. In 2011 for every five swordfish landed one marine mammal was killed and six fish including sharks and tunas were tossed overboard, clearly dead or dying.4 While Total estimated catch of marine mammals from May 2007 to onboard observers note some fish thrown January 2013 based on NOAA observer data and observer overboard are “alive” there is serious concern coverage about delayed, post-release mortality due to physiological and physical trauma induced by CONSERVATION MEASURES: net injuries. Some whales that escape with The Pacific Leatherback Conservation Area (PLCA) netting attached to their fluke or flippers was designated in 2001 to protect leatherback sea take on average up to six months to die as the turtles from drift gillnets by closing the area to attached net reduces the whales’ ability to dive this method of fishing annually from August 15 to and feed, and increases their susceptibility to November 15. The Pacific Loggerhead Conservation infection. Area was established in 2001 to protect loggerhead sea turtles that migrate into waters south of Pt. Conception during forecasted El Niño events. The INCIDENTAL TAKE LIMITS entire EEZ is closed to drift gillnets February 1 to April 30, and 75 miles off the California mainland is Species Observed take during closed to gillnets from June 1 to August 14.6 A depth a 5-year period restriction is also in place whereby the top of the nets must be set at a minimum of 36 feet below the Fin Whale 1 surface and acoustic pingers must be affixed to the Humpback Whale 1 nets to reduce marine mammal takes. Sperm Whale up to 2 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES7: Leatherback Turtle up to 2 The table on the left shows the incidental take Loggerhead Turtle up to 2 statement limits for Endangered Species Act-listed species taken in the drift gillnet fishery. If these Olive Ridley Turtle 1 limits are reached over any 5-year period, NMFS is required to reinitiate formal consultation under the Green Turtle 1 Endangered Species Act. 3 Estimated Catch and Discards in the CA Drift Gillnet Fishery for Swordfish/Thresher Sharks May 1, 2007 to January 31, 2013 Catch Discards Catch Discards Dolphins 309 309 Fish 71,736 46,288 Bottlenose Dolphin 8 8 Albacore 2,933 107 Long Beak Common Dolphin 21 21 Bay Pipefish 6 6 Northern Right Whale Dolphin 33 33 Blue Marlin 8 8 Pacific White-sided Dolphin 57 57 Bluefin Tuna 1,990 123 Risso’s Dolphin 13 13 Bullet Mackerel 821 576 Short Beak Common Dolphin 162 162 Common Mola 41,216 41,209 Unidentified Common Dolphin 15 15 Crestfish 8 1 Escolar 7 1 Pinnipeds 268 268 Humboldt Squid 8 1 California Sea Lion 261 261 Jack Mackerel 63 11 Northern Elephant Seal 7 7 Jumbo (Humboldt) Squid 28 22 Louvar 436 42 Whales* 22 22 Oarfish 6 6 Minke Whale 6 6 Opah 7,812 214 Sperm Whale 16 16 Pacific Bonito 1,354 910 Pacific Mackerel 1,963 1,447 Sharks and Rays 15,192 6,688 Pacific Pomfret 707 14 Bat Ray 7 7 Pacific Sardine 62 19 Bigeye Thresher Shark 335 167 Remora 35 35 Blue Shark 5,710 5,703 Skipjack Tuna 1,440 718 Common Thresher Shark 4,288 325 Striped Marlin 155 155 Hammerhead Shark 8 8 Swordfish 10,102 205 Longfin Mako Shark 38 1 Unidentified Billfish 8 8 Megamouth Shark 10 10 Unidentified Fish 42 42 Pacific Electric Ray 25 25 Unidentified Invertebrate 324 324 Pelagic Stingray 84 84 Unidentified Rockfish 8 8 Pelagic Thresher Shark 8 1 Unidentified Tuna 36 29 Salmon Shark 164 159 Yellowfin Tuna 128 46 Shortfin Mako Shark 4,474 167 Yellowtail 30 1 Smooth Hammerhead Shark 22 22 Leatherback Sea Turtles 13 13 Soupfin Shark 6 1 Spiny Dogfish 13 8 Grand Total 87,540 53,588 *Humpback whales and gray whales were also reported caught with drift gillnets, however, not by the observer program. Source: NMFS Observer Program, 2007-2013. All estimates based on number observed divided by annual observer coverage. All estimates rounded up to whole animals per NOAA Protected Resource Methodology. In 2010 one endangered sperm whale was observed killed and another was observed seriously injured in a drift gillnet off southern California, resulting in NMFS estimating a total of 16 endangered sperm whale takes in the drift gillnet fishery in that year alone. Photo Credit: ©Peter Allinson/Marine Photobank TAKES OF ENDANGERED WHALES: temporary rule expired January 31, 2014 and to In 2010 the drift gillnet fishery seriously injured date, NMFS has not renewed the protection for and killed an estimated 16 endangered sperm these endangered whales. whales. In response, in September 2013 the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) ABOUT THE FISHERY implemented temporary emergency regulations Large mesh drift gillnets are set at sunset and prohibiting drift gillnet fishermen from fishing retrieved at dawn to target swordfish and common in waters deeper than 2,012 meters (6,601 feet) thresher sharks. These nets are greater than one without 100% observer coverage and NMFS mile in length with a mesh size of ≥ 14 inches and set a hard cap of one sperm whale take (serious are set at a minimum of 36 feet below the ocean’s injury or mortality) that would close the fishery surface (gear is typically 1,800 meters in length in the event a sperm whale take is observed. with a stretched mesh size ranging from 18 to These emergency measures also require a vessel 22 inches).8 Fishermen also catch and sell other monitoring system on all drift gillnet vessels.5 The 5 Check out Oceana’s interactive map of this data: http://www.oceana.org/en/our-work/promote-responsible-fishing/bycatch/drift-gillnets/learn-act fish species including albacore tuna, bluefin tuna, THE SOLUTION skipjack tuna, opah, shortfin mako shark, and Existing regulations are insufficient to address louver. The swordfish drift gillnet fishery takes bycatch concerns and the drift gillnet fishery is place in federal waters, primarily off southern ultimately a declining industry, already phased California-but some effort occurs from Morro Bay out in many other coastal states across the west to Monterey Bay and further north9- with main and east coast as well as on the high seas and ports of operation in San Diego, Los Angeles area in the Mediterranean.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Horizontal and Vertical Movements of Longfin Makos (Isurus Paucus)
    101 Abstract—The longfin mako (Isurus paucus) is a poorly studied oceanic Horizontal and vertical movements of longfin shark taken in fisheries throughout makos (Isurus paucus) tracked with satellite- its worldwide range in temperate and tropical waters. Satellite-linked linked tags in the northwestern Atlantic Ocean tags were deployed to investigate the movements of 2 mature males, 1 one tagged in the northeastern Gulf Robert E. Hueter (contact author) of Mexico (GOM) and the other off John P. Tyminski1 northern Cuba. Horizontal tracks John J. Morris1 estimated by using likelihood meth- 2 ods were similar for these sharks; Alexei Ruiz Abierno comparable movements were docu- Jorge Angulo Valdes2,3 mented from the GOM, through the Straits of Florida and the Ba- Email address for contact author: [email protected] hamas, and into the open Atlantic Ocean where they converged on the 1 Center for Shark Research Mid-Atlantic Bight. Depth and tem- Mote Marine Laboratory perature ranges were 0–1767 m and 1600 Ken Thompson Parkway 4.0–28.8°C. A diel pattern of vertical Sarasota, Florida 34236 movement was evident for both in- 2 Centro de Investigaciones Marinas dividuals, along with regular forays Universidad de la Habana from cold daytime depths to warmer Calle 16, No. 114 e/ 1ra y 3ra near-surface waters, possibly as an Miramar, Playa, La Habana CP 11300, Cuba adaptation for thermoregulation. The vertical movements of longfin 3 School of Natural Resources and Environment makos allow them to exploit verti- University of Florida cally migrating prey but these move- P.O. Box 116455 ments increase their vulnerability to Gainesville, Florida 32611 pelagic longlining.
    [Show full text]
  • Nbr First Edition Update Table 4.1 Southeast Region
    NBR FIRST EDITION UPDATE TABLE 4.1 SOUTHEAST REGION FISH BYCATCH BY FISHERY Bycatch estimates are in live pounds or number of individuals, except where indicated, and reflect the average from the years identified. Fishery bycatch ratio = bycatch / (bycatch + landings). Some bycatch ratios (marked **) could not be developed, e.g., where bycatch was by weight and numbers of individuals, and landings were in pounds. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME YEAR BYCATCH UNIT CV FOOTNOTE(S) Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico HMS Pelagic Longline # Albacore Thunnus alalunga 2010 1,918.02 POUND Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus 2010 26,080.69 POUND b Blackfin tuna Thunnus atlanticus 2010 4,512.86 POUND Blue marlin Makaira nigricans 2010 66,418.67 POUND b Blue shark Prionace glauca 2010 368,449.76 POUND c Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus 2010 329,849.02 POUND Coastal shark group 1 - South Atlantic 2010 32,216.15 POUND Coastal shark group 2 - South Atlantic 2010 66.14 POUND b Sailfish Istiophorus platypterus 2010 9,061.00 POUND b Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis 2010 859.80 POUND Swordfish Xiphias gladius 2010 303,408.98 POUND White marlin Kajikia albida 2010 32,546.84 POUND Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 2010 24,918.85 POUND TOTAL FISHERY BYCATCH 1,200,306.78 POUND TOTAL FISHERY LANDINGS 3,916,146.00 POUND TOTAL CATCH (Bycatch + Landings) 5,116,452.78 POUND FISHERY BYCATCH RATIO (Bycatch/Total Catch) 0.23 Gulf of Mexico Coastal Migratory Pelagic Gillnet Atlantic bonito Sarda sarda 2006-2010 102.86 INDIVIDUAL Sea catfishes Ariidae 2006-2010 14,348.40 INDIVIDUAL TOTAL FISHERY
    [Show full text]
  • Black Marlin (Makaira Indica) Blue Marlin (Makaira Nigricans) Blue
    Black marlin (Makaira indica) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Opah (Lampris guatus) Shorin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Striped marlin (Kaijkia audax) Western Central Pacific, North Pacific, South Pacific Pelagic longline July 12, 2016 Alexia Morgan, Consulng Researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external sciensts with experse in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scienfic review, however, does not constute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendaons on the part of the reviewing sciensts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 About Seafood Watch 3 Guiding Principles 4 Summary 5 Final Seafood Recommendations 5 Introduction 8 Assessment 10 Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment 10 Criterion 2: Impacts on other species 22 Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness 45 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem 55 Acknowledgements 58 References 59 Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species 69 2 About Seafood Watch Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originang from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase producon in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or funcon of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendaons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservaon issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.
    [Show full text]
  • Forage Fish Management Plan
    Oregon Forage Fish Management Plan November 19, 2016 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Marine Resources Program 2040 SE Marine Science Drive Newport, OR 97365 (541) 867-4741 http://www.dfw.state.or.us/MRP/ Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife 1 Table of Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................................... 6 Federal action to protect Forage Fish (2016)............................................................................................ 7 The Oregon Marine Fisheries Management Plan Framework .................................................................. 7 Relationship to Other State Policies ......................................................................................................... 7 Public Process Developing this Plan .......................................................................................................... 8 How this Document is Organized .............................................................................................................. 8 A. Resource Analysis ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • © Iccat, 2007
    A5 By-catch Species APPENDIX 5: BY-CATCH SPECIES A.5 By-catch species By-catch is the unintentional/incidental capture of non-target species during fishing operations. Different types of fisheries have different types and levels of by-catch, depending on the gear used, the time, area and depth fished, etc. Article IV of the Convention states: "the Commission shall be responsible for the study of the population of tuna and tuna-like fishes (the Scombriformes with the exception of Trichiuridae and Gempylidae and the genus Scomber) and such other species of fishes exploited in tuna fishing in the Convention area as are not under investigation by another international fishery organization". The following is a list of by-catch species recorded as being ever caught by any major tuna fishery in the Atlantic/Mediterranean. Note that the lists are qualitative and are not indicative of quantity or mortality. Thus, the presence of a species in the lists does not imply that it is caught in significant quantities, or that individuals that are caught necessarily die. Skates and rays Scientific names Common name Code LL GILL PS BB HARP TRAP OTHER Dasyatis centroura Roughtail stingray RDC X Dasyatis violacea Pelagic stingray PLS X X X X Manta birostris Manta ray RMB X X X Mobula hypostoma RMH X Mobula lucasana X Mobula mobular Devil ray RMM X X X X X Myliobatis aquila Common eagle ray MYL X X Pteuromylaeus bovinus Bull ray MPO X X Raja fullonica Shagreen ray RJF X Raja straeleni Spotted skate RFL X Rhinoptera spp Cownose ray X Torpedo nobiliana Torpedo
    [Show full text]
  • Feeding Habits of the Common Thresher Shark (Alopias Vulpinus) Sampled from the California-Based Drift Gill Net Fishery, 1998-1 999
    PRETI ET AL.: FEEDING HABITS OF COMMON THRESHER SHARK CalCOFl Rep., Vol. 42, 2001 FEEDING HABITS OF THE COMMON THRESHER SHARK (ALOPIAS VULPINUS) SAMPLED FROM THE CALIFORNIA-BASED DRIFT GILL NET FISHERY, 1998-1 999 ANTONELLA PRETI SUSAN E. SMITH AND DARLENE A. RAMON California Department of Fish and Game National Marine Fisheries Service, NOM 8604 La Jolla Shores Dnve Southwest Fisheries Science Center La Jolla, California 92037 P.O. Box 271 sharksharkshark@hotniail coni La Jolla, California 92038 ABSTRACT (Compagno 1984). It is epipelagic, gregarious, and cos- The diet of common thresher shark (Alopius vulpinus) mopolitan, and in the northeastern Pacific seems to be from US. Pacific Coast waters was investigated by means most abundant within 40 miles of shore (Strasburg 1958). of frequency of occurrence, gravimetric and numerical Its known range extends from Clarion Island, Mexico, methods, and calculating the geometric index of im- north to British Columbia; it is common seasonally from portance (GII) of prey taxa taken from stoniachs col- mid-Baja California, Mexico, to Washington state.' It lected by fishery observers from the California-based is the leading commercial shark taken in California, drift gill net fishery. Sampling was done from 16 August where it is highly valued in the fresh fish trade (Holts et 1998 to 24 January 1999, a time when the California al. 1998). It is also sought by recreational anglers for its Current was undergoing rapid change from El Niiio to fighting ability as well as food value, especially in south- La Niiia conhtions. Of the 165 stomachs examined, 107 ern California.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Thresher Shark, Alopias Vulpinus
    4 Thresher Shark, Alopias vulpinus Thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus. Photo credit: Dale Sweetnam. History of the Fishery The common thresher shark, Alopias vulpinus, is the most common commercially landed shark in California. They are primarily caught using large mesh drift gill nets and hook and line gear, but are also caught incidentally with small mesh gill nets and harpoon. Prior to 1977, all sharks were reported in one market category and not separated by species, and it is assumed threshers were caught as bycatch in gears at levels similar or greater than today. The first significant fishery for thresher sharks began the late 1970s to early 1980s when drift gill net fishers began to target them close to the southern California coastline. The fishery expanded rapidly and, because of overfishing concerns, the California Department of Fish and Game (Department) as mandated by the State Legislature began an observer program, monitored landings and implemented a logbook program. A limited entry permit program for drift gill net gear was initiated in 1982, with permits issued to fishers rather than boats to prevent false inflation in value. The drift gill net fishery for thresher sharks peaked in 1981 when 113 Status of the Fisheries Report 2008 4-1 drift gill net boats landed nearly 600 tons (544 metric tons). However, total landings using all gears were highest the following year with a total of more than 1700 tons (1542 metric tons) taken by all gears (Figure 4-1). 2000 1500 1000 Landings (short tons) (short Landings 500 0 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year Figure 4-1.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Productivity and Susceptibility Indices to Determine the Vulnerability of a Stock: with Example Applications to Six U.S
    Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine the vulnerability of a stock: with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. Wesley S. Patrick1, Paul Spencer2, Olav Ormseth2, Jason Cope3, John Field4, Donald Kobayashi5, Todd Gedamke6, Enric Cortés7, Keith Bigelow5, William Overholtz8, Jason Link8, and Peter Lawson9. 1NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East- West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; 2 NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way, Seattle, WA 98115; 3NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2725 Montlake Boulevard East, Seattle, WA 98112; 4NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, 110 Shaffer Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95060; 5NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, 2570 Dole Street, Honolulu, HI 96822; 6NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 75 Virginia Beach Drive, Miami, FL 33149; 7NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, 3500 Delwood Beach Road, Panama City, FL 32408; 8NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543; 9NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, 2030 South Marine Science Drive, Newport, OR 97365. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Wesley S. Patrick, NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, 1315 East-West
    [Show full text]
  • Porbeagle Shark Lamna Nasus
    Porbeagle Shark Lamna nasus Lateral View (♀) Ventral View (♀) COMMON NAMES APPEARANCE Porbeagle Shark, Atlantic Mackerel Shark, Blue Dog, Bottle-nosed • Heavily built but streamlined mackerel shark. Shark, Beaumaris Shark, Requin-Taupe Commun (Fr), Marrajo • Moderately long conical snout with a relatively large eyes. Sardinero (Es), Tiburón Sardinero (Es), Tintorera (Es). • Large first dorsal fin with a conspicuous white free rear tip. SYNONYMS • Second dorsal fin and anal fin equal-sized and set together. Squalus glaucus (Gunnerus, 1758), Squalus cornubicus (Gmelin, 1789), • Lunate caudal fin with strong keel and small secondary keel. Squalus pennanti (Walbaum, 1792), Lamna pennanti (Desvaux, 1851), Squalus monensis (Shaw, 1804), Squalus cornubiensis (Pennant, 1812), • Dorsally dark blue to grey with no patterning. Squalus selanonus (Walker, 1818), Selanonius walkeri (Fleming, 1828), • Ventrally white. Lamna punctata (Storer, 1839), Oxyrhina daekyi (Gill, 1862), Lamna • Maximum length of 365cm, though rarely to this size. NE MED ATL philippi (Perez Canto, 1886), Lamna whitleyi (Phillipps, 1935). DISTRIBUTION The Porbeagle Shark is a large, streamlined mackerel shark with a In the northern conical snout and powerful body. The first dorsal fin is large and hemisphere, the originates above or slightly behind the pectoral fins. It has a free rear Porbeagle Shark tip which is white. The second dorsal fin is tiny and is set above the occurs only in the anal fin, to which it is comparable in size. The caudal fin is strong and North Atlantic and lunate with a small terminal notch. The caudal keel is strong and, Mediterranean, uniquely for the northeast Atlantic, a smaller secondary caudal keel is whilst in the present.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Techniques Used to Tag Large Pelagic Species In
    FieldField techniquestechniques usedused toto tagtag largelarge pelagicspelagics speciesspecies inin thethe NorthNorth PacificPacific Donald R. Hawn (JIMAR/NMFS Hon Lab) StudyStudy area:area: NorthNorth PacificPacific Primarily in waters around the main Hawaiian Islands PlatformPlatform opportunities:opportunities: HawaiiHawaii--basedbased commercialcommercial longlinelongline vesselsvessels n F/V Sea Pearl (94 ft. schooner) Deck low to the water surface! LonglineLongline vesselsvessels Ø Advantage: Can travel great distances (cruise range 4,000 km) and catch an average of 400 pelagic animals per/trip Ø Disadvantage: Commercial gear difficult to work with (i.e., haul back speed and gear type) ResearcherResearcher food…Yum!food…Yum! EquipmentEquipment Loppers WC Pop-up Archival Transmitting (PAT) tag SubjectSubject animalsanimals Large pelagics (18 – 100 kg): Tuna, billfish and sharks 15 Bigeye tuna 1 Albacore tuna 7 Opah 2 Shortfin mako 1 Monchong TargetTarget area:area: opahopah TargetTarget area:area: tunatuna TaggingTagging instrumentsinstruments andand hardwarehardware Lopper Applicator heads Shark setup FieldField notesnotes Est. Tag Time Set SST Spp./Sex Wt . Date Lat. (N) Long. (W) Comments No. (h) No. (F) (lbs) Fish appeared exhausted but in good shape, tag was implanted a little more BE 110 6 4/25 1202 4 15.35.16 146.36.68 78.0 lateral than expected, hook to the side of mouth with 4 in. of leader, swam away slowly. Good tag, once tagged and released, BE BE 80 1 4/26 2310 5 18.40.25 147.13.39 76.5 swam away in a quick dart maneuver
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence of Shark Predation and Scavenging on Fishes Equipped with Pop-Up Satellite Archival Tags David W
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by NSU Works Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks Oceanography Faculty Articles Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences 10-1-2004 Evidence of Shark Predation and Scavenging on Fishes Equipped with Pop-up Satellite Archival Tags David W. Kerstetter Virginia Institute of Marine Science, [email protected] J. Polovina National Marine Fisheries Service - Honolulu John E. Graves Virginia Institute of Marine Science Find out more information about Nova Southeastern University and the Oceanographic Center. Follow this and additional works at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facarticles Part of the Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons NSUWorks Citation David W. Kerstetter, J. Polovina, and John E. Graves. 2004. Evidence of Shark Predation and Scavenging on Fishes Equipped with Pop- up Satellite Archival Tags .Fishery Bulletin , (4) : 750 -756. http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facarticles/542. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Marine and Environmental Sciences at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oceanography Faculty Articles by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks Oceanography Faculty Articles Oceanographic Center Faculty Publications 10-1-2004 Evidence of Shark Predation and Scavenging on Fishes Equipped with Pop-up Satellite Archival Tags David W. Kerstetter J. Polovina John E. Graves Find out more information about Nova Southeastern University and the Oceanographic Center. Follow this and additional works at: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/occ_facarticles Part of the Marine Biology Commons, and the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Oceanographic Center Faculty Publications at NSUWorks.
    [Show full text]
  • Can Sharks Be Saved? a Global Plan of Action for Shark Conservation in the Regime of the Convention on Migratory Species
    Seattle Journal of Environmental Law Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 15 5-31-2015 Can Sharks be Saved? A Global Plan of Action for Shark Conservation in the Regime of the Convention on Migratory Species James Kraska Leo Chan Gaskins Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjel Part of the Education Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Kraska, James and Gaskins, Leo Chan (2015) "Can Sharks be Saved? A Global Plan of Action for Shark Conservation in the Regime of the Convention on Migratory Species," Seattle Journal of Environmental Law: Vol. 5 : Iss. 1 , Article 15. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjel/vol5/iss1/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal of Environmental Law by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. Can Sharks be Saved? A Global Plan of Action for Shark Conservation in the Regime of the Convention on Migratory Species James Kraska† and Leo Chan Gaskins‡ Shark populations throughout the world are at grave risk; some spe- cies have declined by 95 percent. The most recent IUCN (Interna- tional Union for the Conservation of Nature) assessment by the Shark Specialist Group (SSG) found that one-fourth of shark and ray spe- cies face the prospect of extinction.
    [Show full text]